|
Friends: We just released the following notice to the press. Al
-----Original Message----- TO THE PRESS: Yesterday we sent you a word document and a note alerting
you to the fact that Boulder County is suppressing Sunshine. Later, we received the following e-mail from the county. Today, we are informed, in an article published in the
Daily Camera that Boulder County voters are being disenfranchised because they
are not getting their mail ballots http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/county_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2423_4187316,00.html
There are at least four BIG stories here: 1. CAMBER anticipated the problems with mail ballots.
They published an extensive analysis of the 2001 mail ballot election which
documented the problems that are inherent to the voting method. The county and
the state know about these problems and continue to force this insecure,
inaccurate, and unwanted method of voting upon the voters. Officials have
refused to address the problems identified in the 2001 report. 2. Since October 2nd this year, CAMBER has attempted to
get copies of the records and files that would enable CAMBER to detect problems
with the ballots and mailing. The county has erected a series of concentric
fences to block and deny CAMBER's legitimate Open Records Request. The most
recent illustration of their blocking and stalling is the response from the
county pasted below. The letter to which the county is responding is posted
at: http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/2005/10/boulder-county-refuses-open-records.html
As you can see, the county is saying that they will not provide the data in
time to use it for the current election. This stinks. 3. The problem with mail ballots is not unique to Boulder
County. Arapahoe County has sent two ballots to each voter in at least four
precincts. There is increasing chatter about voters who have not received
their ballot, and nobody knows how many voted ballots do not make it to the
clerk on time -- if ever. One cannot rely on election results that are so
compromised. 4. When offered the opportunity to conduct elections by
mandatory mail ballot, 60 percent of Boulder County voters said NO. Amendment
28 was soundly defeated in 2001. Boulder county Commissioners voted to conduct
the current election as a mail ballot only election BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THAT
A MAIL BALLOT ELECTION WOULD HELP PASS REF C. It isn't right that officials
should use the method of voting as a tactic to raise taxes and eliminate term
limits. Election officials have assumed the role of masters rather
than the role of public servants. This must be corrected immediately. Check this out, and please inform your readers what is
going on. Al Al Kolwicz CAMBER - Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election
Results 2867 Tincup Circle Boulder, CO 80305 303-494-1540 www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://ColoradoVoter.blogspot.com
-----Original Message----- From: Bailey, Shelley [mailto:sbailey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:51 PM To: alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Liss, Josh Subject: Mr. Al Kolwicz CAMBER Original via e-mail I am in receipt of your letter dated October 20 in which
you made serious accusations regarding the County's intentions with regard to
our response to your October 6, 2005 Open Records Request, and allegations that
the response was inadequate. I am now in the process of reviewing your October 20
letter with respect to your reiteration and clarification of your October 6
Open Records Request. After my review of those items, I will respond as
follows: 1) To the extent your October 20 letter provides clarification
or information that allows me to release additional documents to you, I will
inform you of the situation and schedule a time for you to inspect the
documentation; and 2) To the extent my answer to any given item remains the
same, I will state that fact. In addition to discussions about your October 6, Open
Records request, you also made new Open Records requests in your October 20
letter. Our office will not be able to respond to the new requests until after
the election. The Clerk has adopted a rule that allows her office, under
certain circumstances to delay responding to Open Records Requests. (Please let
me know if you would like me to fax this document to you, in which case I will
need a fax number, or if you would like for me to mail it to you.) The
authority for adopting this rule is as follows: 1) C.R.S. § 24-72-203(1)(a) states, "All public
records shall be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times, ... but
the official custodian of any public records may make such rules with reference
to the inspection of such records as are reasonably necessary for the
protection of such records and the prevention of unnecessary interference with
the regular discharge of the duties of the custodian or the custodian's
office." Due to the fast approaching election day and the fact that
the Clerk's office is devoting all of its resources to meet this impending
deadline, the Clerk has determined that it is reasonably necessary for the
prevention of unnecessary interference with the regular discharge of the duties
of the Clerk's office to delay responding to any Open Records requests (which
meet the defined criteria) from October 17, 2005, until after the election.
See also, Citizens Progressive Alliance v. Southwestern Water Conservation Dist.,
App.2004, 97 P.3d 308. (Colo. App 2004) 2. Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-203(3)(b)(III) a custodian may
have additional time to respond to an Open Records Request when " [a]
request involves such a large volume of records that the custodian cannot
reasonably prepare or gather the records within the three day period without
substantially interfering with the custodian's obligations to perform his or
her other public service responsibilities" or, if, "[a] broadly
stated request is made that encompass all or substantially all of a large
category of records and the agency is unable to prepare or gather the records .
. . because (A) The agency needs to devote all or substantially all of its
resources to meeting an impending deadline or period of peak demand that is
either unique or not predicted to recur more frequently than once a
month." C.R.S. 24-72-203(3)(b) 3. Finally, Citizens Progressive Alliance v. Southwestern
Water Conservation Dist., App.2004, 97 P.3d 308 (Colo. App 2004)t, allows for
situations under which an agency may not be able to respond within the
additional seven day extension provided by statute. "A records custodian
cannot be sanctioned for failure to comply with the time limits in
24-72-203(3)(b) in situations where . . . compliance with a request within
those time limits is a physical impossibility." In this case, the Clerk's
office is devoting its entire staff to fulfilling its statutory obligations to
meet the requirements of the upcoming election. Your additional requests involve
voluminous documents and it is not possible for the Clerk's office to fulfill
your request and continue to perform its statutorily mandated duties for the
upcoming election. Therefore, as stated above, I will respond to your October
20 letter regarding your previous requests as soon as possible. With regard to
your additional requests, pursuant to the Clerk's rule, the Clerk's office will
respond to your requests within 20 days after the election. However, I will
also make every effort to provide a response to you sooner than the above
stated deadlines, if at all possible. In order to respond to your additional
requests, as set forth herein, I will need your request on the County's
official Open Records Request Form. That document has been sent to you previously
on several occasions. If you would like another copy sent to you, please let
me know by e-mail response. Sincerely, Shelley Stratton Bailey Assistant County Attorney |